Wikinews:Admin action alerts/Archive 1

Protected pages
Fixed - Amgine Moved - Amgine
 * MediaWiki:Blocklogtext
 * Sentence needs copyediting - Amgine
 * Please fix the Main Page by moving the Welcome template above the main table opening brace. I've posted an example at this page to show the fix. &mdash; DV 01:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Super Deletion
This is not a normal deletion request, as it requires some extra steps, according to Jamesday, to execute correctly. So I'm posting it here as well.

Two prominent Wikipedia contributors have made a request to perform a "super delete" on this page, because it contains a log of what they regard to be a private conversation, in which they participated, a few entries back in its history.

I won't quote anything from the log per the above requests, but an anon IP questioned whether Jimbo said anything interesting in this log to justify keeping it. In fact, Jimbo made a number of comments about Wikinews concerning the viability of firsthand reporting, a behind the scenes comment about the BBC, and a mention of another collaborative site called "Indymedia".

A number of Wikinews contributors have posted questions about these issues on this site, and this log was a rare opportunity to hear from Jimbo on these questions.

I'm sorry that Jamesday (who made a single three word remark in the discussion) and Sannse (who also made only two brief remarks in the entire discussion) feel so offended by this log appearing on Wikinews.

Although I think the log is noteworthy, if an Admin could please "super delete" this page and all of its history, (and the "archive tables" whatever Jamesday is referring to) hopefully that will help satisfy Jamesday and Sannse to move on past this episode. Deleted - Amgine

Jan. 8

 * MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext
 * The link to IP address should be updated to IP address - Amgine 03:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Site notice banner
Admins, please consider changing the site banner to the following, more compact appearance:

If you agree with this change, the site banner text is stored on the "Sitenotice" page under "MediaWiki".

The current banner needlessly chews up an extra line of space at the top of every page. In addition to the smaller text, I omitted the "last update" date because contributors can use watchlist to monitor the site news for changes, and the old date makes the site look like it hasn't been updated in a while.

Thanks.

Protected pages
Special:Allpages shows instead of 'NextPage', 'Next page (Record_computer_outage_at_UK_government_department)', which I feel is a bit much. Next page would do, and the user can figure out themselves where it starts. Or else break the information up somehow. Because of that arbitrary page title, I happened to think our page was broken. Simeon 20:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to say, that's a very odd bit... but it is not something which is configurable. That title is added to the link so it knows where it had gotten to alphabetically in displaying all the pages; it literally is the next page it will display. - Amgine 02:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress
Actually, it appears to be done now, handled by User:Eean and User:Ronline. IP 61.51.144.243 spammed a half-dozen pages with a link to "www.lingshengdown.com/hexian.htm 和弦铃声|和弦铃声下载". Request an IP block if it comes back up? - Amgine 07:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support King Ho Cheung 03:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked user
I blocked User:Squeakfox for 24 hours. The reason, vandalising Pinochet arrested after Supreme Court ruling with speedy delete, copyvio (copied from his article Two women strangled in further political violence in Honduras) and 'Noise' takes on 'Fockers' in weekend box office race with copyvio (copied from same).

The original Two women... article was copyvio'd when the author was asked for sources, and he responded:
 * Majority of above text taken from SecurityProNews and this  direct article. dif

Squeakfox removed the copyvio and expanded the Wikinews article, and explained the Security ProNews article was a copy of the Wikinews article. The Security ProNet article is now 404.

Squeakfox created a series of articles, Security ProNet use of Wikinews articles creates deletion chaos, Security ProNews use of Wikinews articles creates deletion chaos, Use of Wikipedia articles creates deletion chaos, and Use of Wikinews articles creates deletion chaos, stub articles, and posted some them (variously) to the Main Page via Template:Latest news.

I don't believe there was any premeditated harm intended by Squeakfox. I believe the user could be a valuable contributor, but needs guidance on use of sources and verifiability. User may also be a contributor at Security ProNews (which is also carrying other Wikinews articles.) - Amgine 23:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears the auto-unblock is not working. I unblocked Squeakfox as soon as I noticed this. Someone else may have been autoblocked? See Special:Ipblocklist - Amgine 07:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Unblocked #2 after autoblock expired. - Amgine 22:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Squeakfox was blocked out for 48 hours instead of the 24 hours due?--Squeakfox 01:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Super Deletion
This is not a normal deletion request, as it requires some extra steps, according to Jamesday, to execute correctly. So I'm posting it here as well.

Two prominent Wikipedia contributors have made a request to perform a "super delete" on this page, because it contains a log of what they regard to be a private conversation, in which they participated, a few entries back in its history.

I won't quote anything from the log per the above requests, but an anon IP questioned whether Jimbo said anything interesting in this log to justify keeping it. In fact, Jimbo made a number of comments about Wikinews concerning the viability of firsthand reporting, a behind the scenes comment about the BBC, and a mention of another collaborative site called "Indymedia".

A number of Wikinews contributors have posted questions about these issues on this site, and this log was a rare opportunity to hear from Jimbo on these questions.

I'm sorry that Jamesday (who made a single three word remark in the discussion) and Sannse (who also made only two brief remarks in the entire discussion) feel so offended by this log appearing on Wikinews.

Although I think the log is noteworthy, if an Admin could please "super delete" this page and all of its history, (and the "archive tables" whatever Jamesday is referring to) hopefully that will help satisfy Jamesday and Sannse to move on past this episode. Deleted - Amgine

Protected pages
Fixed - Amgine Moved - Amgine
 * MediaWiki:Blocklogtext
 * Sentence needs copyediting - Amgine
 * Please fix the Main Page by moving the Welcome template above the main table opening brace. I've posted an example at this page to show the fix. &mdash; DV 01:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

&mdash; DV 04:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Protected pages

 * Please, could an Administrator change the weather template usage on the main page, where the line reads (ignoring the "nowiki" markup):

to use this line:

This change allows our readers to see the latest weather map using a template which works for both the Weather page and the Main Page.

Thanks. &mdash; DV 23:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Done - Amgine 00:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

March 29

 * Could one of the Administrators please fix a formatting problem on the Main Page?


 * In the current Main Page layout, there is usually a large gap above the "Browse latest news by:" section in the second column.


 * A simple change would fix that problem. Just replace the following lines:


 * class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%; padding: .5em; border: 1px solid #cfcfbf; background-color: #f0f0ff; text-align: center;"|


 * with the lines:


 * class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%; height:1%; padding: .5em; border: 1px solid #cfcfbf; background-color: #f0f0ff; text-align: center;"|


 * This change will cause the "Browse latest news by:" section to always be flush with the top of its column box. It also gets rid of the gap below the Browse latest news section, allowing the Developing stories section to appear higher up on the page.


 * Please follow this link to see the result when this fix is applied.


 * &mdash; DV 11:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the code, made the task very easy... except the servers are incrediably slow today! CGorman 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * CGorman, thank you for quickly taking care of this request. &mdash; DV 18:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. CGorman 19:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think someone tried to slip in a HOAX article.I just put the article "Church's Report finds Rumsfeld, Bush ordered torture" in for speedy deletion and think an administrator should remove it from the developing stories section and try to ban whoever submitted it in the first place. Paulrevere2005 23:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for catching that! -- Davodd | Talk 23:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 31

 * Can I invite an admin to protect the Date and Source templates? Source was recently vandalised which of course disrupts every article on the site. Both are stable in their format - neither have been altered (for a good reason) for a long time and I don't think they need to be open to all editors. Dan100 (Talk) 09:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Where does this creeping protectionism stop?
 * First it was the Main Page. Then it was old news articles. Now there's a proposal to start protecting templates that could be used to disrupt "every article on the site".
 * There is one act of vandalism on the Source template in its entire history, from an IP which resolves to Belgium of all places. Dan100 fixed it 12 minutes later, which is great - this is a sign that we have enough alert RC monitors to make any vandalism short-lived.
 * I just finished adding the well-received "Wikinews" template to add to all articles that reference another Wikinews story in the Related stories section. Suppose that gets used on a bunch of stories, and a vandal alters it for a few minutes one day. Will that template then be protected as well? Wonder if I want to try a subtle style change to try and improve it later on? I shouldn't have to be an adminstrator to contribute neat ideas like that and be able to further develop and maintain them. It's simply not the wiki way to protect pages at the drop of a hat.
 * There needs to be a line in the sand past which further protection is detrimental to the wiki nature of Wikinews. A single act of vandalism is not enough to justify a sacrifice of the wiki spirit. Protection should be a last, and temporary resort. Giving up a little bit of liberty to edit the site, for the illusion of a bit more safety from vandals, will only show that we deserve neither liberty nor safety.
 * Sure the Admins can protect a template here, and a template there. Always with a promise that this is the last one, or that this was a special case. That's how restrictions on liberty always sneak in without anyone seriously objecting until it's too late.
 * If this is done for pragmatic reasons, I will understand, but it is corrosive to the Wiki spirit. &mdash; DV 10:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to withdraw this proposal, if I may. It seems that a better way to avoid such meta-template problems is simply to use 'subst:' in the templates when they're used. That would mean altering the templates would have no effect on existing articles. Dan100 (Talk) 11:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You have restored my faith in the wiki spirit!
 * However, won't "subst:" obscure the use of templates for new or casual contributors?
 * People tend to learn best by example. If experienced editors use "subst:" with templates, the evidence that a template was used is eradicated for less experienced contributors who look at the article's markup later on for clues.
 * Also, while it's not impossible to copy and paste the expanded template contents from older articles into newer articles, now that we have a lot of stories that are related to each other, it would be nice to be able to copy and paste the new "Wikinews" source template instances from one story to another using the template instantiations and not the expanded template contents.
 * It's great that you're looking for a technological alternative for your proposal. &mdash; DV 12:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed the writing guide and reporting tools to use Subst, but it's not a widely known or understood function :(.
 * I mean, I think we need to use either this method or protect templates (which I agree isn't a good solution). Otherwise the risj for massively site-disrupting vandalism is too great, in my opinion. Dan100 (Talk) 17:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You have restored my faith in the wiki spirit!
 * However, won't "subst:" obscure the use of templates for new or casual contributors?
 * People tend to learn best by example. If experienced editors use "subst:" with templates, the evidence that a template was used is eradicated for less experienced contributors who look at the article's markup later on for clues.
 * Also, while it's not impossible to copy and paste the expanded template contents from older articles into newer articles, now that we have a lot of stories that are related to each other, it would be nice to be able to copy and paste the new "Wikinews" source template instances from one story to another using the template instantiations and not the expanded template contents.
 * It's great that you're looking for a technological alternative for your proposal. &mdash; DV 12:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed the writing guide and reporting tools to use Subst, but it's not a widely known or understood function :(.
 * I mean, I think we need to use either this method or protect templates (which I agree isn't a good solution). Otherwise the risj for massively site-disrupting vandalism is too great, in my opinion. Dan100 (Talk) 17:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's great that you're looking for a technological alternative for your proposal. &mdash; DV 12:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed the writing guide and reporting tools to use Subst, but it's not a widely known or understood function :(.
 * I mean, I think we need to use either this method or protect templates (which I agree isn't a good solution). Otherwise the risj for massively site-disrupting vandalism is too great, in my opinion. Dan100 (Talk) 17:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean, I think we need to use either this method or protect templates (which I agree isn't a good solution). Otherwise the risj for massively site-disrupting vandalism is too great, in my opinion. Dan100 (Talk) 17:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)